The Fallacy of Holistic Thinking and the Libertarian Point of View:　An Opinion

We all want to build a better world view (in whatever way we all individually see such an idea in our own thoughts), and in doing so we, as a species, tend to align ourselves with others on a wide range of ideas, thoughts and issues in life. It is in some ways… natural (this drifting towards others in ideas and thought). But in our world of definitions, often it comes down to two ideas (or camps if you will). Those whom are “conservative” in nature, thought, actions or being and those that are “liberal” and often (it seems), time and time again these two side appear (at least in a very superficial and rudimentary way), in stark opposition either one side or the other.

Each side has their own idea or “utopian view” (if you will) of how the world is and should be, and each side plods along seeking to create their existence (and the world around them) in that image.

Yet there is another group (at least that is what they tell themselves). A group called “libertarians”. They call themselves many things….the alternative, the third party, the real voice for change and reason (and so forth) and they challenge both the right and the left on most issues.

Not with standing my steadfast (personal) thought that libertarians (and especially their American Demi-God… Ron Paul) are not actually libertarian at all, but more so a radicalized pseudo economic libertarian hybrid, and therefore not even remotely connected to the real idea of libertarianism 　, a much bigger thought always occurs to me when I hear people expressing the notion they are a libertarian.

Libertarians have this view of freedom for everyone to do what they choose and self regulation/the goodness of all humans will prevail to bring about success for everyone.

While I certainly would be the first to say both conservative and liberal utopian ideas have flaws and need work (or are in many instances not workable.. in my personal thoughts), fundamentally, they are the same and they, along with libertarians, speak much about the same things in many ways (and I can see the good and not so good in all the ideas of thought)… Libertarians are just as conservative as conservatives, just as liberal as liberals (as those two are with each other and themselves). It is not really much of a difference at all, when you look at it in logal terms of what they are saying and how they look at each others ideas.

The biggest problem I have with this idea of Libertarian is that (to me) it seems even more short-sighted than the other two schools of utopian thought in some ways, mainly because it relies on the idea of a holism that (in terms of human thinking and actions) is extremely, if not impossible to achieve. Indeed the very paradox of the idea of libertarians is in its own assertion of being “the way society should go”, but hiding it behind this strange and benevolent idea of holistic equality. At least the other two utopian ideas (liberal and conservative), more realistically understand (right or wrong.. that is not the issue I am raising at this juncture) the human species real behaviour.. that is to create self determination and takes sides (and the like). Libertarians seems to deny this notion in their theory, but actually most of their words speak very much of taking sides on all things.

Libertarians, like holism, don’t account for the fact that society is like people: it is different at different stages (developmentally and so forth) and conditions of society (like people) are not pieces of the organism, but function as a whole. Libertarians seem to expect society (as a whole) to act in a manner beneficial to all. A great idea and something we would all like to see, but the simple matter of the idea is that this is impossible if for no other reason than the growth and development that must occur.

Conservatives speak of private sector assistance.
Liberals of government funded programs
Libertarians talk about a self regulated social safety net.
How is this (fundamentally) any different than the other two? In fact it is very much inline with the “conservative” idea of thinking

Utopia (societal Utopia) knows no political or economic coercion: Under its ideas of existence the state has withered away, each person co-operates freely in accordance with her/his abilities and desires and all needs are satisfied. Sounds a lot like this idea that libertarians talk about. But there seems to be some very big holes in this idea of thinking… starting with the fact that humans are not really in the habit of doing more than that have to if they see others are not doing the same. It sounds more like a piecemeal style of looking at the world then a real idea of utopia or libertarian freedom.

If we were to attempt to align this holistic libertarian view of life up with our real existence as a species, the first thing that comes into my mind is how this approach is very unscientific in nature. When one looks at or applies science to anything, wholes can never be the object of the scientific inquiry. It is not possible. Even at the most rudimentary of logical thinking when one is speaking about a whole, what they are actually speaking about is pieces of the whole. Libertarians speak in the same way. Again, going back to this idea of piecemeal, they talk of being able to do this or that or the other thing (under this great banner of … personal freedom), but that is much like a scientist talking about the universe but speaking about different galaxies, constellations and so forth. They are in fact, piecemeal-ing the entire thing. Living under the delusion that it is a whole… It is not. Nothing is ever a whole (but in conceptual ideology only). If we wish to study things, we are bound to select certain aspects of it. It is not possible for us to observe or describe a whole piece of the world, or a whole piece of nature, in faｃt, not even the smallest whole piece may be described, since all description is necessarily selective. Society is the same, and libertarians seem to forget (or neglect to look at is in that way). You cannot see society as a one … self determine things-will-work-themselves-out-and-we-will-all-succeed type of way. It is not possible to do so. The variations, amount of situations and so forth in society (not to mention the thoughts of its inhabitants) are endless,

In some ways, Libertarians seem to me to take a page from Plato’s thinking handbook. Plato, a pessimist, believed that all change—- or almost all change—- was decay. This was his law of historical development. Accordingly, the Utopian blueprint aims to arrest all change, or what we would call now a days… make it static. I don’t mean that libertarians want to cease evolution, what I mean is that in a strange paradoxical way they want things (in order to be totally free and self determining)… static in nature. (I am sure many would disagree with me on that issue). This to me seems to be one of the reasons that libertarians often speak of a breakdown in the social environment and how only self determination on all things can bring us back to a place of completeness. This makes no sense to me. In a strange way, this seems like more control to me, for it is in a way trying to elevate social life change by making it obsolete in the sense of categorizing it as self directed.. Again, this is unscientific in nature, as we all know that it is this interaction of society that creates the evolution and change.

There are three levels of development in humans (and subsequently society)
1. trial/error/chance.
2. invention.
3. planning.

These must be done together, and they cannot be all done under the idea of self directed, Utopian/libertarian thinking. It does not work that way in our species.

Just like science cannot explain (as a whole) anything, libertarians cannot say that giving everyone the personal freedom to do what they want is the way to make a better society for everyone. It is not logically sound. You can never speak about anything as a whole in that way.

Every written history of our species is a narrow aspect of the total development of the history of humankind. It seems to me that Libertarians need to take a step back and realize this more, as well as ask themselves some real questions:

Questions like:
-Can humans direct/set up one physical apparatus in its entirety? (and while many may not see what I am saying, but stating the idea of self determination and participation at ones own degrees and wishes on everything, libertarians are doing just that).

-Is the Utopian libertarian view advocated by them nothing more than (like most other forms of living) an experimental method applied to society?

-How much does their perception of their idea of what they see as a real “equal” way of living clouding their actions and knowledge of the non-existence of real libertarians on this planet

-and most importantly (at least for me in my thoughts), I always remember that it is difficult enough to be critical of our own mistakes (as individuals), but it is nearly impossible for us to persist in a critical attitude towards those of our actions that involve the lives of many people. All that we do in our lives effects others in some way. Libertarians seem to dismiss this or render it obsolete and I think it is time for them to realize that not every person is an island unto themselves. We are a species, connected in all ways and as such we need to understand that sometimes one must give up (or give) something to another to create a true balance in society (or at least as close to a balance as we can ever come) If not, we are nothing more than the Darwanistic self determining/self preserving/self ego species that Libertarianism really speaks about… but sugar coats it as something much nicer than that and much more… equal.